Oxygen therapy improves cerebral oxygen delivery and neurovascular function in hypoxaemic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Findings What is the central question of this study? How does oxygen therapy influence cerebral blood flow, cerebral oxygen delivery and neurovascular function in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients? What is the main finding and its importance? Oxygen therapy improves cerebral oxygen delivery and neurovascular function in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. This improvement in cerebral oxygen delivery and neurovascular function might provide a physiological link between oxygen therapy and a reduced risk of cerebrovascular disease (e.g. stroke, mild cognitive impairment and dementia) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Abstract We investigated the role of hypoxaemia in cerebral blood flow (CBF), oxygen delivery (CDO2) and neurovascular coupling (coupling of CBF to neural activity; NVC) in hypoxaemic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (n = 14). Resting CBF (duplex ultrasound), peripheral oxyhaemoglobin saturation ( ; pulse‐oximetry) and NVC (transcranial Doppler) were assessed before and after a 20 min wash‐in of supplemental oxygen (∼3 l min−1). The peripheral oxyhaemoglobin saturation increased from 91.0 ± 3.3 to 97.4 ± 3.0% (P < 0.01), whereas CBF was unaltered (593.0 ± 162.8 versus 590.1 ± 138.5 ml min−1; P = 0.91) with supplemental O2. In contrast, both CDO2 (98.1 ± 25.7 versus 108.7 ± 28.4 ml dl−1; P = 0.02) and NVC were improved. Specifically, the posterior cerebral artery cerebrovascular conductance was increased to a greater extent after O2 normalization (+40%, from 20.4 ± 9.9 to 28.0 ± 10.4% increase in conductance; P = 0.04), whereas the posterior cerebral artery cerebrovascular resistance decreased to a greater extent during O2 normalization (+22%, from −16.7 ± 7.3 to −21.4 ± 6.6% decrease in resistance; P = 0.04). The cerebral vasculature of COPD patients appears insensitive to oxygen, because CBF was unaltered in response to O2 supplementation leading to improved CDO2. In patients, the improvements in CDO2 and neurovascular function with supplemental O2 may underlie the cognitive benefits associated with O2 therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".